Agenda item

Ward

Sunbury East

 

Proposal

Erection of a replacement detached dwelling house to replace existing detached property and garage

 

Recommendation

The application is recommended for approval

Description:

Erection of a replacement detached dwelling house to replace existing detached property and garage,

 

Additional Information:

The Planning Officer reported that following the submitted “Summary Findings and Recommendation” of the full bat survey last week, the applicant had now provided a full Bat Roost Assessment document which was reviewed by the Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT). The SWT have confirmed that the pre-determination requirements had been address. Consequently, there were no objections subject to the following condition.

 

Condition 7 to be amended:

 

The proposed demolition and construction works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in the Recommendations section of the SIMLAW Full Bat Roost Assessment dated 10 September 2024, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:- In the interest of preventing harm to wildlife.

 

The Planning Officer stated that the Council had received an additional letter of representation, which in addition to the previous comments object to the proposal on the following grounds:

-       Out of character

-       Overbearing roof

-       Impact on the building line

-       Visual impact

-       Adverse Impact on the TPO trees and disagreement with the submitted Tree report (Officer’s note:- The Council’s Tree Officer raised no objection to the proposal in principle on tree grounds. However, this subject to pre-commencement conditions requiring additional information to ensure the TPO trees would not significantly impacted by the proposal).

-       Access/Parking and turning

-       Does not agree with the Renewable Energy Report (Officer note: The Council’s Sustainability Officer has confirmed that the submitted Renewable Energy Report meets the Council policy requirement. However, as a standard practice, the application is required to submit full details at later stage of the renewable energy strategy).

-       External lighting

 

An e-mail had also been sent to all members of the Planning Committee from a local resident raising objections to the scheme. These Planning issues had already been covered in the report.

 

An e-mail had also been received by the agent acting on the applicant’s behalf supporting the scheme.

 

Public Speaking:

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Linda Ferguson spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

-       The development was out of character for the road.

 

-       The massing of the development was out of scale with neighbours.

 

-       There would be an overbearing impact on neighbours.

 

-       Overdevelopment of the site.

 

-       Insufficient parking.

 

-       Potential impact on trees with a TPO.

 

-       Concern over impact on biodiversity, specifically in relation to bats.

 

The Planning Officer responded that from a planning perspective there was no difference in terms of parking requirements between a 4-bedroom and a 6-bedroom house.

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Simon Merrony spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

-       In keeping with Council’s relevant Development Plan Policies.

 

-       No adverse impact on adjoining properties in terms of outlook, natural light, and privacy.

 

-       Original idea was to extend the house rearwards and to both sides.

 

-       Current garage was not suitable for modern cars.

 

-       Most houses in the street go up to the boundary.

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Kathy Grant spoke as Ward Councillor against the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

-       There were more residents against the application than in favour of it.

 

-       Construction industry is responsible for 20% of emissions from the built environment.

 

-       Refitting the existing house could have lower whole life emissions.

 

-       Development was out of character for the road.

 

The Planning Officer responded that the proposal included use of an air source heat pump. The Local Planning Authority did not have control over which materials were retained and reused following the demolition and it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on that basis.

 

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

 

-       That roof heights along The Avenue varied.

 

-       The amendment to Condition 7 relating to the Bat Roost Survey was supported.

 

-       Concern that the development would lead to more hardscaping in future. The Planning Officer advised that Permitted Development rights for the site had been removed, as such any future plans would have to be via a planning application.

 

-       There were no grounds within Planning law to refuse the application.

 

-       Concern over impact on climate change. The Committee were advised that the development was in line with adopted policy CC! which stated that at least 10% of the energy is achieved from onsite renewable sources.

 

 

The Committee voted on the application as follows:

 

For: 7

Against: 0

Abstain: 3

 

Decision: The application was approved.